Marketing Copy Board — 3-Lens Ad Copy Review

Review ad, landing page or marketing email copy before it ships: unanswered customer objections, weak CTAs, and risky claims, with findings the same model checks against each other.

How it works

Reviews ad copy, landing page copy, or marketing email copy using three reviewer lenses: a Skeptical Customer, a Conversion Realist, and a Brand Guardian. Each lens flags issues in turn, then the lenses cross-examine each other, and a board verdict tags every finding CONFIRMED, CORROBORATED, or DISPUTED, ending with a ship recommendation. It quotes the actual copy, avoids inventing product claims, prices, or features, and asks for audience or offer context if none is given. It does not run A/B tests, measure real conversion, or give legal advice; it reviews the text you paste, so redact pricing or unreleased details you would rather not share. The lenses are roles applied by one model (or by sub-agents if your agent supports them), so the cross-checks are self-checks; spot-check the findings.

Sample output

Sample input (an invented example):

Use the Marketing Copy Board on this (a sample I wrote). It's the hero section of a landing page for a fictional subscription product, SnoozeBox, a $29/month sleep-tracking ring with an app. Audience: adults 30-50 who sleep badly and have tried apps before. Goal metric: free-trial signups.

Headline: The Best Sleep Tracker Ever Made. Revolutionary.

Subhead: SnoozeBox uses breakthrough AI to fix your sleep in just 7 days, guaranteed. Our users never wake up tired again, and we beat every other wearable on the market, 100%.

Body: SnoozeBox is a lightweight titanium ring with 14 sensors, a 9-day battery, and a companion app with sleep scores, trend charts, and weekly reports. It syncs with all major health apps. Designed in Portland by a passionate team of sleep enthusiasts.

Button: Learn More

Footer line: $29/month after trial. Cancel anytime via example.com/cancel.

Real, unedited output:

## Phase 1 — Lens findings
Mode: one lens at a time (each lens's pass was finished before the next began)

### 🕵️ Skeptical Customer
1. **"The Best Sleep Tracker Ever Made. Revolutionary."** Two superlatives and no proof point. This audience has tried apps before, so the headline makes them think "heard that before" in the first second and they leave. *Rewrite:* lead with a concrete fact the copy already states: "A titanium sleep-tracking ring with 14 sensors and a 9-day battery."
2. **"fix your sleep in just 7 days, guaranteed"** The copy gives no mechanism. A tracker measures sleep. Nothing here explains how it *fixes* sleep. A reader who has already been let down by apps will ask "prove it" and won't stay to find out. *Rewrite:* "See what's happening with your sleep, every night."
3. **"Our users never wake up tired again"** No testimonial, rating, user count, or study backs this up. There is no social proof anywhere in the hero. The "why should I trust you" objection goes unanswered. *Rewrite:* cut it. (Adding real social proof is fine, but only proof that actually exists. Don't make any up.)
4. **"we beat every other wearable on the market, 100%"** Beat them at what? The copy never names the comparison, so a skeptic reads it as filler. *Rewrite:* cut it.
5. **Price/ownership objection unanswered.** "$29/month after trial" is the only pricing. A ring is hardware, so the reader immediately wonders: do I keep the ring? Return it if I cancel? Is there an upfront cost? How long is the trial? None of that is answered, and a reader who can't tell what they're committing to won't sign up. *Rewrite:* state the ring/subscription terms and the trial length plainly (you'll need to supply these; they aren't in the copy).
6. **"Why is this different from the apps I already tried?"** The body lists sleep scores, trend charts, and weekly reports, which are the same things this audience already has. The core objection for this audience goes unanswered.

### 📉 Conversion Realist
1. **Button: "Learn More"** The goal metric is free-trial signups, but the only CTA doesn't mention the trial. A skimmer doesn't learn the next step is a free trial. *Rewrite:* "Start your free trial."
2. **The free trial is buried in the footer.** The word "trial" shows up only in "after trial," in the last line, and the trial length is never stated. The 8-second skim misses the main offer. *Rewrite:* move the trial into the subhead or put it next to the button.
3. **The body is a spec sheet.** "14 sensors, a 9-day battery" describes the product, not what the reader gets. *Rewrite (restating, not adding):* "Wear it for 9 nights without charging."
4. **The headline doesn't say what the product is.** "Best Sleep Tracker Ever Made" never says *ring*, which is the one real differentiator from phone apps. The skim gives superlatives but no product.
5. **"Designed in Portland by a passionate team of sleep enthusiasts."** These words do nothing for the action and push the CTA further down. *Rewrite:* cut it, or move it below the fold.

*(No urgency mechanism exists, but I'm not flagging that as a finding. The low-risk trial plus "cancel anytime" is a legitimate reason to act, and that point is covered by #1 and #2. Inventing urgency would add a claim.)*

### 🛡️ Brand Guardian
1. **"fix your sleep in just 7 days, guaranteed"** This is an outcome guarantee with a deadline, attached to a health result. If a customer screenshots it on day 8 and still sleeps badly, the business is on the hook. Health outcome claims on wearables also attract regulatory scrutiny over substantiation. (I'm flagging risk here, not giving legal advice.) *Rewrite:* remove "fix," "7 days," and "guaranteed."
2. **"never wake up tired again"** Absolute language. One tired user is a counterexample.
3. **"beat every other wearable on the market, 100%"** An unsubstantiated comparative claim against named-by-implication competitors. The "100%" turns puffery into something that sounds measurable, which makes it riskier. *Rewrite:* cut it.
4. **"The Best Sleep Tracker Ever Made"** This is generally treated as puffery, so it's lower risk on its own. Next to "100%" and "guaranteed," though, it reads as part of a pattern of overclaiming.
5. **"syncs with all major health apps"** "All" is one unsupported app away from a complaint. *Rewrite:* "syncs with major health apps," or list the specific ones.
6. **"breakthrough AI"** The copy never says what the AI does. Vague AI claims are drawing growing regulatory and press scrutiny. *Rewrite:* cut "breakthrough AI," or say what it does if that's true.
7. **Tone whiplash.** The headline and subhead are all-caps-energy hype. The body and footer are sober and factual. SnoozeBox is fictional, so I can't check this against an established brand voice. Within the page itself, the hype undercuts the credible half.
8. **The recurring-charge disclosure sits far from the CTA.** "$29/month after trial" appears only in the footer, away from the button. For a trial that converts to a paid subscription, how prominent the disclosure is relative to the sign-up action matters for auto-renewal rules. Credit: "Cancel anytime via example.com/cancel" is clear and does reduce risk.

## Phase 2 — Cross-examination
- **[SC #1] superlative headline**: no challenge / corroborated by Conversion Realist: "Same line fails the skim test (CR #4), since it spends the headline on hype instead of naming the product" / corroborated by Brand Guardian: "Part of the overclaiming pattern (BG #4)."
- **[SC #2] 7-day fix**: no challenge / corroborated by Brand Guardian: "This is the single biggest screenshot liability (BG #1)" / Conversion Realist: no view.
- **[SC #3] never tired / no social proof**: no challenge / corroborated by Brand Guardian: "Absolute language (BG #2)" / corroborated by Conversion Realist: "Nothing near the CTA gives a reason to trust it."
- **[SC #4] beat every wearable**: no challenge / corroborated by Brand Guardian: "Unsubstantiated comparative (BG #3)."
- **[SC #5] ring/pricing/trial terms unclear**: no challenge / corroborated by Conversion Realist: "Same root cause as the buried trial (CR #2)" / corroborated by Brand Guardian: "Ties to the disclosure-prominence issue (BG #8)."
- **[SC #6] not differentiated from apps**: no challenge / corroborated by Conversion Realist: "The spec list is the same feature list as the apps they quit (CR #3)."
- **[CR #1] "Learn More" button**: challenged by Skeptical Customer: "A wary reader might prefer a lower-commitment button," but this is a general hunch with no basis in this copy, and the copy already offers a low-commitment trial with cancel-anytime. Not substantiated. / Brand Guardian: no view.
- **[CR #2] trial buried**: no challenge / corroborated by Skeptical Customer (SC #5) / corroborated by Brand Guardian (BG #8).
- **[CR #3] spec sheet body**: no challenge / corroborated by Skeptical Customer (SC #6).
- **[CR #4] headline doesn't name product**: merged with SC #1 (same line, same fix).
- **[CR #5] Portland line is dead weight**: challenged by Brand Guardian: "It's the only line on the page with any human or brand personality. Cutting it leaves pure hype plus specs, which worsens the tone problem in BG #7." / corroborated by Skeptical Customer: "'Enthusiasts' signals hobbyists rather than sleep expertise, so it doesn't build trust either."
- **[BG #1–#4]**: corroborated by Skeptical Customer (SC #2, #3, #4, #1 respectively). No challenges.
- **[BG #5] "all major health apps"**: no challenge / corroborated by Skeptical Customer: "A skeptic's first question is 'which ones?'"
- **[BG #6] "breakthrough AI"**: no challenge / corroborated by Skeptical Customer: "Unexplained buzzword, another 'prove it' moment."
- **[BG #7] tone whiplash**: no challenge (scope caveat noted: internal consistency only) / corroborated by Skeptical Customer: "Hype followed by specs reads as overselling, which lowers trust in the specs too."
- **[BG #8] disclosure far from CTA**: no challenge / corroborated by Conversion Realist (CR #2) and Skeptical Customer (SC #5).

## Phase 3 — Board verdict
1. **[CORROBORATED]** "fix your sleep in just 7 days, guaranteed" is an unbacked health outcome guarantee with a deadline. It's the top trust and liability issue. *Rewrite:* "See what's happening with your sleep, every night."
2. **[CORROBORATED]** "beat every other wearable on the market, 100%" is an unsubstantiated comparative claim. *Rewrite:* cut it.
3. **[CORROBORATED]** "Our users never wake up tired again" is an absolute claim with no social proof behind it. *Rewrite:* cut it. Add real proof only if it exists.
4. **[CORROBORATED]** The trial is buried, its terms are unclear, and the recurring-charge disclosure sits far from the CTA. Trial length, ring ownership, and cancel terms aren't near the button. *Rewrite:* put "Free trial, then $29/month. Cancel anytime." directly beside the button, and fill in the trial length and ring terms yourself.
5. **[CORROBORATED]** The headline is two superlatives and never names the product or the ring. *Rewrite:* "A titanium sleep-tracking ring with 14 sensors and a 9-day battery."
6. **[CORROBORATED]** Nothing differentiates the product from the apps this audience already tried. The body is a feature list identical to theirs. *Rewrite:* lead with the ring-specific benefits the copy already has, e.g. "Wear it for 9 nights without charging."
7. **[CORROBORATED]** "breakthrough AI" is an unexplained buzzword that invites scrutiny. *Rewrite:* cut it, or state what it does if true.
8. **[CORROBORATED]** "syncs with all major health apps" is an absolute claim. *Rewrite:* drop "all," or list the apps.
9. **[CORROBORATED]** Tone whiplash: hype hero, sober body. Fixing #1–#5 mostly resolves it.
10. **[CONFIRMED]** The "Learn More" button doesn't match the free-trial goal. *Rewrite:* "Start your free trial." (A skeptic challenged this but without a copy-specific reason.)
11. **[DISPUTED]** The "Designed in Portland… sleep enthusiasts" line is dead weight before the CTA. Challenge: "It's the only line with brand personality; cutting it worsens the tone problem." (Your call. A middle path is to keep the origin and drop "enthusiasts," which undercuts credibility.)

**Ship recommendation:** Rewrite first. There are 9 CORROBORATED findings, led by the 7-day guarantee, the "beat every wearable, 100%" comparison, and the buried trial terms, plus 1 CONFIRMED CTA mismatch. The body and footer are a solid factual base. The hero claims are what need to go.

Handling sensitive info in the copy

If the copy references real pricing, customer names, or unreleased product details, treat that as
context only — do not echo it back beyond what's needed to explain a finding. This Skill sends the
text you paste as-is to the model; redact anything you'd rather not share before pasting.

Works with

Built for Claude Code; other agents that read SKILL.md files (such as Codex CLI or OpenClaw) should also work. No network access or extra tools needed.

Anthropic, OpenAI and OpenClaw are trademarks of their respective owners. This Skill is an independent product and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by any of them.